Jeremy Hunt: Given the confusion caused by the spiralling costs of the scheme to help older and disabled people with the digital switchover, what specific reassurance can the Minister give to profoundly deaf people and severely disabled people on the higher rates of disability living allowance that any cost overrun will not threaten their access to television, which, for them, far from being a luxury, is a vital part of their quality of life?

Michael Fabricant: The Minister will know that not long from now—in fact, this October, I believe—Whitehaven will have its analogue signal switched off, so digital switchover starts this year. Yet the legislation that will enable the Department for Work and Pensions to provide information about at whom such assistance should be targeted is only going through the House now. Can the Minister assure us that, by October of this year, the people who need to be assisted with digital switchover will be assisted?

Shaun Woodward: I put on record my thanks to the hon. Gentleman, who has done a great deal to ensure that digital switchover is a successful policy for the whole country. He rightly raises the issue of Whitehaven. We are, of course, concerned that no one in Whitehaven is left behind. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed), who has done much work to ensure that that is the case. The points that the hon. Gentleman makes are valid and I reassure him that we have assessed all those issues and that the Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill, which I am sure that he will support in the House this afternoon, will continue to ensure that no one is left behind.

Richard Caborn: I hope that we can get a swimming pool in Bolsover so that my hon. Friend can have a swim there before he retires. Seriously— [ Interruption. ] He is a good swimmer. In December last year, a project team was put in place. It will report in mid-March on the feasibility aspect. As I understand it, things are going okay to date. There will be further meetings. I hope that, by the end of March, we will be able to report on that feasibility study and that that project will be able to go ahead.

James Gray: I was pleased to hear the Minister's commitment to swimming and swimming pools—a view that I am sure is shared by the Liberal Democrats. Is he aware that, of the six pools in my constituency, three of them—in Cricklade, Wootton Bassett, Calne—will be closed down by the Liberal Democrat-controlled district council? What can he do to help me in my efforts to persuade the council to change its mind, or to bring in private finance to assist those pools to stay open?

Richard Caborn: It is a devolved matter, but I hope that Scotland will join the water polo team that will compete in the 2012 Olympics. I hope that we will have an excellent water polo team for 2012. If Prince William wants to play, we are more than likely to recruit him as well. We are now investing in the Great Britain water polo team so that, hopefully, they can go to Beijing in 2008, and so that we will definitely have a first class team for 2012. I hope that some of the Scots will be in that team.

Richard Caborn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have been taking up with Sport England the question of how we can rationalise on swimming pools. Some pools have a subsidy of more than £6 a swimmer, although several local authorities have got it down to something like 50p a head. As I have indicated, even a brand new 50 m pool will cost a local authority £500,000 a year to keep it operational. There are serious questions about swimming pools. The recent soaring energy prices have hit swimming pools hard. We must make the pools as cost-effective and energy-efficient as possible so that we do not have to give subsidies to swimming pools that should be going to other sports. That is not to say that subsidies will not go to swimming pools—that will be inevitable because otherwise the cost of swimming would be prohibitively high. I will take the hon. Gentleman's point up with Sport England so that it can examine the formula.

Tessa Jowell: Very detailed analysis has been made of London's capacity to handle the additional traffic generated by the Olympics, and that has been incorporated into the transport plan, which has been highly commended, for both its timeliness and comprehensiveness, by the International Olympic Committee. Because of the timing of the games, commuter traffic levels will be about 20 per cent. lower than normal, but the Olympics will add about 5 per cent. to that. I am sure that the hon. Lady will take every opportunity to raise her specific concerns with Transport for London.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the subject. The creation of a more skilled work force, particularly in east London, is an important part of the legacy of the Olympics and is a prerequisite for ensuring that all the infrastructure for the Olympics is built within budget and on time. I am sure that he will commend the work of the London employment and skills task force, which addressed that subject specifically, and linked it to the commitment to using local labour from the east end wherever that is possible, so that local people can build what will be their facilities.

Mark Field: The Secretary of State will appreciate that 2012 provides a focus for a number of regeneration projects in central London. However, I would like her to give thought to not just phase 2—and if it is to be delayed, let us make sure that it takes place as soon as possible after 2012—but a number of other regeneration projects, particularly those around King's Cross, which have been put on hold pending the Olympics, often for the reasons that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) mentioned, namely a lack of skills. Will she ensure that we take a proper look at regeneration, both looking to the decade beyond 2012 and focusing on the short term?

Richard Caborn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a full account of the budget to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. When the previous Select Committee conducted a hearing in June 2003, at its request, the documentation included an appendix on the memorandum of understanding between the Mayor's office and the Government explaining how any overshoot would be funded. The Government expect to discharge that responsibility through shared arrangements, to be agreed with the Mayor of London, and by seeking additional national lottery funding in amounts to be agreed at the time. Government discussions on the overspend are under way, as my right hon. Friend told the Select Committee.

Jeremy Wright: I am sure that the Minister will accept that many good causes that receive lottery funding help to alleviate the burden on the state in various ways—the South Warwickshire carers support service in my constituency is a good example. Does he therefore accept that, if some of those good causes lose lottery funding, the state will bear the burden and that that would be completely unacceptable if it were the result of further overspending on the Olympics because the Government got their sums wrong.

Richard Caborn: I hear from a sedentary position that that makes it worse. The decision to provide £1.5 billion to fund the lottery was not opposed by the Opposition. The Scottish National party—and I have answered its objections—made it quite clear that it does not want the Olympics, full stop. That is on the record, and I remember it being said. Let us park that one the side, as that is an honourable position from Scotland. The SNP may not want the Olympics—that is fine. However, the point is that there was all-party agreement about funding. The memorandum of understanding was put to the House via the Select Committee and was not challenged at the time. We have done no more and no less than what we set out in the memorandum of understanding with respect to the funding of the 2012 Olympic games.

Tessa Jowell: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Sport has set out clearly the agreement that was reached and signed up to by all parties in the memorandum of understanding, which defines how any cost overrun for the Olympics will be met, so, at a point where we are discussing the apportionment of responsibility for paying for any increase, I will not rule anything out. This is an example of politics at its worst. The Conservatives support the Olympics publicly, but then, in a narrow and populist way, seek to undermine every reasonable attempt by the Government to ensure a proper and sustainable budget.

Edward Vaizey: You are in charge.

Hugh Robertson: I think that we can take that as a yes.
	The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has just produced a highly critical report of the Government's management of the Olympic budget. When the London Olympics Bill was going through this House, the Minister of Sport said:
	"when the organisers have to ask for more funding...it is seen as a failure."—[ Official Report, Standing Committee D, 13 October 2005; c. 42.]
	Does the Secretary of State stand by that, and if so, whose failure is it?

Richard Caborn: Yes, we considered that issue in our discussions of both national and international regulation. I could not concur more with the hon. Gentleman. This country now has 60 million television sets; 14 million households are connected to the internet; and, on average, we all have a mobile phone. All of those are now platforms for gambling, and that is why it is so important that the legislation comes into effect by 1 September. Those platforms are seeing the real growth in gambling, and the vulnerable people who need to be protected are among their users.

Richard Caborn: We have none other than our ability to stop them advertising in this country. We now have a white list, and those who want to operate in the United Kingdom must comply with its conditions: that we can have access to the information; that their licensing regime is robust and transparent; and the three core conditions, which are that their operation is crime-free, that it looks after the vulnerable, including children, and that it ensures people a fair bet. If they comply with those requirements and are open to scrutiny, they can operate here, but they must be on the white list.

Simon Hughes: When the Speaker's Committee and the Electoral Commission plan to respond to the recommendations of the review of the Electoral Commission by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Edward Vaizey: That is exactly the point. The details of how switchover will work are contained in a Government document that was published in December, which made it clear when people would be eligible to receive assistance in the regions. However, as I hope I made clear when we pressed the Minister in Committee on the issue, it was at that stage unclear, which is why the Minister has written his long and helpful letter. I am sure that he will make it available in the Library for my hon. Friends to peruse. He wrote the letter because it was unclear whether switchover help would be available beyond the period of nine months.
	The specific examples on which we pressed the Minister in Committee were, of course, the obvious examples. Switchover will commence in Whitehaven at the end of this year. Let us say that someone aged 75 or over now living in London were to move to Whitehaven in 2012. Their friends in London will receive free assistance in 2012 when switchover takes place there, but it is not clear whether the person who moved would be eligible for such assistance. The answer given by the Minister in his letter is that the person moving would not be eligible for assistance in Whitehaven in 2012. Therefore, the purpose of the clause—I have heeded the call of the Secretary of State for a white knight to draft a region by region sunset clause—is to switch off the Bill in a region once switchover has been achieved there, so that the data is not held any longer than necessary.

Don Foster: On that very point and bearing in mind that the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) is sympathetic to the people he is describing—those who live in London but move to the borders in 2012, for example—I would like to ask him a question. His helpful new clause refers to the Secretary of State making a decision on the time scale for ending the available help, so I presume that he envisages a fairly long period of time.

Edward Vaizey: I am working within the Government's scheme, which is the nine-month period and the clearly set-out timetable starting with Whitehaven and ending in London. The new clause is relatively loosely drafted in order to allow the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to switch off the Bill—for example, in the borders at the appropriate time. The Government have said that the scheme will operate on a rolling basis and proceed region by region, which I have taken as my starting-point. If that is the case and given that the Bill becomes increasingly redundant region by region, let us make that explicit in the Bill and—in a pioneering fashion, I have to say—remove legislation from the statute book region by region. That is the thinking behind the new clause.

Don Foster: To help the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Minister told us that there was no need for such a sunset clause because the whole approach has been
	"to link the powers directly to the event of digital switchover, which is a time-limited event"? ——[Official Report, Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2007; c. 55.]
	As we have already discussed, decisions have still not been made as to the precise nature of that event.

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Minister did say that digital switchover is a time-limited event and that that is why a sunset clause is redundant. He certainly made it clear that, in his opinion, six years would not be long enough, despite the timetable of 2012.
	The hon. Gentleman's intervention allows me to move on to new clause 4(1), which incorporates a commencement date for the Bill. It had been assumed that, once the Bill had been given a Third Reading, it would be able to commence immediately. However, having thought hard about how prepared the Government are for digital switchover, and being aware of the sensitive nature of the Bill in that it gives extensive powers to the BBC or a company that it appoints to access sensitive data, it would seem careless to allow the Bill to commence immediately.
	The Government are not yet in a position to commence digital switchover. We know that they plan to commence digital switchover in October in Whitehaven. The people of Whitehaven are pioneering digital switchover. The rest of the borders region will follow. We also know that the Government are still conducting negotiations with the BBC—in particular, on the level of borrowing. The BBC wants to be able to borrow money, because, as it puts it, the expenditure is lumpy. In this context, lumpy means that there will be bursts of expenditure. The £600 million will not simply be spent in smooth monthly instalments for the next six years. There will be front-ended expenditure in certain periods and the BBC wants to be able to borrow to cover that.
	There is also the important point, which hon. Members have raised, that the BBC is in no way convinced that £600 million will be the final cost of digital switchover, despite what the Government say. It wants guarantees from the Government that if that £600 million cost is exceeded, the additional money will not come out of its programme budget. The new clause is a two-for-one clause. It offers the Minister not only the comfort and legislative tidiness of switching off the Bill, but the opportunity not to start the provisions until he and the BBC are absolutely ready to commence the immensely complicated task of digital switchover.

Si�n Simon: The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other many years and have met each other in all kinds of situations and places, but I have never before met him standing at the Dispatch Box in front of the Opposition Benches. It is a great pleasure to do so. Like the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), I did not have the pleasure of sitting on the Committee. I am glad to be here today.
	I seek the hon. Gentleman's advice. In relation to new clause 3, he seemed to argue that it is important that the finite powers that the Government wish to put in the Bill be rendered infinitefor all kinds of reasons of principle. However, in relation to new clause 4, he seems to be arguing that it is equally important that the indefinite nature of the Bill, which is what the Government intended, be rendered finite. That is almost exactly the opposite of what he seemed to be arguing previously.

Barbara Follett: It will go to join the choir invisible.

Edward Vaizey: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution; it also gives me the opportunity to thank him for his valuable contribution during the Bill's lengthy Committee stage, in which we considered the Bill in great detail, clause by clause. Perhaps I might give him a trailerI use that word, as we are talking about the mediaand say that I will refer to his remarks when we discuss the Government amendments on local authorities, as he made a particularly valuable and effective contribution on the subject. Indeed, it was so valuable and effective that it was adopted by the hon. Members for Bath and for Chesterfieldmy colleagues in Committee, and in so many other ways.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) makes the point that if Whitehaven goes wrong, it could inadvertently publicise the issue of switchover, although that publicity could set back the Government's cause. The Minister and I will visit Whitehaven together in March, and I am grateful to him for the invitation. He extended it to me in Committee, as hon. Members may remember, and I said yes. I was feeling particularly vulnerable in that Committee, and perhaps that is why I accepted with alacrity. Whitehaven will be a pioneer, but I am not sure that it will be subject to the same process that will be followed in the rest of the country. A lot will no doubt be learned from Whitehaven, but it is hard to consider Whitehaven part of the process, because, for example, it is not clear whether the vehiclethe third-party company that the BBC will set upwill be established at that stage. Given how long licence fee negotiations continue, it would not surprise me if, when Whitehaven switches over, the Minister is still negotiating with the BBC on the details of switchover. Whitehaven may end up an isolated pioneer on switchover. In fact, it may end up the only place in the country that has switched over, if the Minister is still carrying on his negotiations with the BBC.
	As I say, new clause 4 is a twofera two-for-one, a double whammyand it offers the Minister the opportunity to ensure that the Bill does not come into force before he is good and ready. It also offers him a two thirds increase in the time available for switchover, in place of the narrow six-year period that I foolishly proposed, on the basis of the timetable that the Government put forward. In new clause 4, we have offered 10 years, which is an extensive periodso extensive, indeed, that my little boy, Joseph, will be at primary school at the time of switch-off. That is the length of time that we are talking about.
	Little Joseph can only gurgle and smile at the momentI could show the House a picture of himbut under the extended period in the new clause, by the time of switch-off he will be reading ancient Greek and attending a local authority primary school. I now live in Conservative-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham, so standards will have improved tremendously by then.

Don Foster: May I begin by apologising, first, to the Liberal Democrat Whips, as I advised them that our deliberations on new clauses 3 and 4 would be extraordinarily brief? Clearly, I was wrong about that. Secondly, may I make a huge apology to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), who pointed out that new clause 3 was tabled in his name alone? Unlike new clause 4, which we support, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) and I did not add our names to the regional sunset clause. I worked long and hard to persuade the hon. Member for Wantage not to table it on the grounds that it was barking mad, and in our private discussions I thought that he accepted that that assumption was correct. I must apologise to him because, having listened to the debate generated by his proposal, I believe that he was wise, sensible and, indeed, profoundly far-sighted not to follow my advice.

Don Foster: If I were making an attack on the Secretary of State I would instantly withdraw my remark.
	The new clause has provoked an extremely important debate on a matter about which there remains considerable confusion. On 16 Januaryhardly very long agoin Committee, we discussed the question of people moving from one part of the country to another, and whether or not they would receive assistance after they had moved. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) himself was uncertain about whether someone who moved from London in 2012 to the borders would receive help. At column 56, I asked the Minister:
	Does that mean that a person who would qualify for assistance who moved from London to the Border region in 2012 would be eligible for targeted assistance there at that time?
	After asking me to provide various postcodes, the Minister said that he would write me. He added:
	I do not want to speak out of turn, but my instinct is that the purpose of the Bill is to enable people who genuinely need help to receive it. [Official Report, Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2007; c. 56.]
	Basically, he went on to say yes to my question. Since then, he has had time to reflect on the matter and to hold discussions, and he sent me an extremely helpful letter setting out the plan to which the hon. Member for Wantage referred. A qualification period would operate eight months before, and one month after, switchover but, as I pointed out in an intervention, there is still confusion about that period. The letter states:
	The dates will be linked to the regional switchover: the date in question will either be the date the final transmitter in a region switches or the date the transmitter which serves the individual in question switches. We and the BBC have not come to a final decision on this.
	That is one of many nitty-gritty issues about which final decisions have not been made. Many of us who served on the Committee and no doubt many in the House are concerned that much of the information is still not finalised, which is why we had hoped that further debate would be possible on clause 5(1), which refers to a switchover help scheme as merely a scheme agreed between the Secretary of State and the BBC.
	That was not to be, but the Government have answered the question about whether assistance will be available to people moving from one part of the country where switchover has not taken place to another part of the country where it has taken place. I am grateful for that answer.

Nigel Evans: The question is what sort of assistance will be available and who will get it. Disabled people, those who are visually impaired and the very elderly will get assistance, but is it not just a matter of going into a shop and buying a 30 box which will allow the TV to be switched overthe problem is the knowledge of what to do and how to do it. Aerials may need to be replaced, which will increase the cost to the person involved. That is why equity is needed in the Bill.

Shaun Woodward: If it is helpful to hon. Members, let me say that we have had to draw up the guidelines based on what we believe will be a workable practice. That has been done with the BBC, the charities, and a whole cross-section of groups, including political parties, and we are happy to continue that discussion.
	At the moment, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that we intend to proceed along the lines that I have laid out in my letter. I will, of course, ensure that a copy of that letter is deposited in the Library. However, if the hon. Gentleman has very clear proof that we may have got the timing wrong and if we, along with Digital UK, can genuinely be convinced that a different time arrangement would be better, of course I can honour his request and agree to look at that. I cannot necessarily promise that the arrangement will change, but if there is a better proposal, which is more effective and efficient, of course we will consider it and we may well implement it.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by saying that he had been feeling somewhat left out of the debate. He has clearly shown with his intervention that there is no fear of that. He makes a helpful point and one that I think we will have an opportunity to return to, perhaps, somewhat bizarrely, when we come to the next string of amendments.
	I was saying that new clause 4 is a more helpful way of addressing sunset clauses. I am certain that the Minister, although he has had to leave us briefly, will, when he responds to the debate, use exactly the same arguments as he used in Committee when opposing a sunset clause that was similar, although a much shorter period was proposed at that time. The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) now seeks to extend the period, which I think is welcome, and adds, helpfully, a proposition on commencement of the legislation. That commencement period, although he did not quite put it like this, would certainly be valuable from my point of view, because it would provide an opportunity to ensure that everyone was happy with all the details of the switchover help scheme before Parliament authorised the commencement of the legislation. It would be one way of ensuring that Parliament had an opportunity to discuss the very important nitty-gritty details of the digital switchover help scheme.
	The addition of the proposition on commencement is excellent and the extension of the period for the sunset clause is also welcome, but no doubt the Minister will deploy exactly the same arguments as he used before. Just in case he is minded to do that, I will outline those arguments and why it would not be sensible to repeat them on this occasion.
	The Minister gave us three reasons why we should not accept the proposal. He said that
	criminal offences should continue to operate after the information had been lawfully disclosed, even though the power to disclose had been spent.
	The Minister was absolutely right; I would entirely agree with his argument were it relevant to the sunset clause proposed then or now. However, as he will be aware, the sunset clause applies only to clause 1, but the offences are in clause 3. The sunset clause did not apply to clause 3, so his argument fell. The Minister went on:
	with the best will in the world, a project of such scope...undoubtedly carries risk
	He gave us the example of things that fall down in the night. You will not be aware of why, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not want to go into matters involving erections on this occasion; things that fall down in the night is more appropriate. In new clause 3, the hon. Member for Wantage would give us a longer period, a greater buffer zone, to cover all the things that could go wrong, so the Minister's argument would fall.
	Finally, the Minister gave his third reason:
	once the switchover help scheme has completed its task, the legal basis for using information and, therefore, for disclosing it, vanishes. [Official Report, Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2007; c. 54.]
	In other words, the implication is that there is a natural sunset clausethe data protection legislation would kick in and people would not be allowed to disclose the information anyway.
	I have taken advice on the matter. Unfortunately, that advice isperhaps the Minister will assure me that it is incorrectthat the clause referred to states specifically:
	in connection with switchover help functions.
	As there is no detail in the Bill on what the switchover help functions are and no explanation of what is in connection with those unspecified help functions, it is perfectly possible that people would find a legal loophole in the phrase
	in connection with switchover help functions.
	Frankly, the Minister does not have a leg to stand on in opposing something that the Secretary of State herself said would be a good idea, which in the past the Minister has said would be worth considering, and which would give absolute certainty.
	The Minister may be broadly right about the role of data protection legislation; surely, then, a belt-and-braces approach, as proposed by the hon. Member for Wantage, would make a great deal of sense. Although I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause 3, which I fear we would not be able to support, to a vote, we certainly hope that the Minister will take new clause 4 seriously.

Robert Syms: To some extent, I support what the Minister was saying; if a scheme is rolled out over four or five years, there will inevitably be a degree of change; technology will change. Being too specific at this stage could be a mistake.
	However, I want to raise one specific point. We are talking about regions. The Minister himself said that a scheme would run for eight months in a region and a month after switch-off. The helpful note that he sent refers, at paragraph 5.21, to final transmission switch-off in a region or transmitter area. However, transmitter areas overlap. It was the caseI suspect that it is still truethat some people on the English side of the Bristol channel got Welsh television and one or two people on the Welsh side got HTV West. The regions are not as neatly defined as they seem on a map of ITV areas. There is overlap, and some of the transmitters may well overlap. In one or two areas, people have the choice of which transmitter they tune into.

Peter Atkinson: I come to the House in some ignorance because I was not lucky enough to be selected to serve on the Committee and have not seen the Minister's letters. As always with these debates, we are allowing the technical details to get in the way of some of the points of principle. The Minister reminded us that the Bill is about the disclosure of social security information. That is a serious and salient point. Highly confidential information will be made available to a large number of people. The BBC, the BBC company and all those who are described as BBC nominees, which I assume are subcontractors, will have sensitive personal information. That is why I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) and new clause 3, which hopefully the Government will ultimately accept.
	The sensitivity attached to the position of military pensioners in Northern Ireland has been discussed, but there are other sensitive situations. People do not necessarily want their neighbours to know that they are in receipt of particular benefits. As someone suggested, not all couples are honest about their ages when they form relationships and it might be embarrassing if a television contractor knocks on the doors and says, Mr. So and so, or Miss So and so, you're eligible for a pension when the other partner is not aware that they have reached that age. I can see a number of awkward and sensitive matters that might arise.
	There will be an element of rough justice. We talked about people moving house. As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, many people will move, although a lot of them will move only short distances and in the majority of cases they will stay within their TV region. However, some will move from London to Border, and they will be disadvantaged, but that is a minor point. In some ways, I sympathise with the Minister. We have to encompass the scheme in boundaries because otherwise it will run out of control at a cost to taxpayers and licence-fee payers. I urge the Minister to consider new clause 3 seriously.

Don Foster: As I understood it, the Minister said a moment ago that he did not expect any changes to the scheme. Is he categorically assuring us that, once an agreement is reached between the Secretary of State and the BBC, there will be no subsequent changes to the scheme, regardless of what happens in Whitehaven or in any other region? That is the implication of what he said and it would be a pity if he made such a categorical statement; however, we need to be clear that that is what he is telling the House.

Shaun Woodward: No, that is not what I am telling the House. I am saying that, if we can improve the scheme as we go along, we will. I do not wish at this point

Edward Vaizey: I look forward to it. I hear what the Minister says about wanting to learn from experience, but I think that it is the feeling of the House that the period of time for switchover in the regions may not be long enough. Although that period is not in the Bill but in documents supporting it, the fact that we have debated a regional sunset clause ensures that hon. Members have been able to convey to the Minister their feeling that nine months may not be long enough. I hope that he appreciates that point.
	I make no apology for tabling the new clauses and amendments.
	As I said when I moved the new clause, I was heeding the Secretary of State's call. No doubt, the Minister will be able to point to splits between me and other Members along the way, but it is clear that there is also a split in his Department; the Secretary of State would like a regional sunset clause, but he resists it. However, my proposal is made in good faith to support the Secretary of State, and to ensure that the measure can be switched off as switchover happens across the country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 7, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
	'(2A) Local authorities may, at the request of a relevant person, supply a relevant person with information on the persons registered as blind or partially-sighted in their area for use (by the person to whom it is supplied or by another relevant person) in connection with switchover help functions.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 5 and 6

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), along with many other Members, raised this important issue on Second Reading and in Committee. All of them, including the hon. Gentleman, did so with distinction. Although the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) sometimes confuses principle and workability, I have to tell him that when Members table amendments or make proposals that would improve legislation, the Government are always open to entertain and consider them. In this case, there is no question but that the proposals and comments of Members, especially the hon. Member for Chesterfield, the work done on the proposals by the hon. Members for Wantage, for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Poole (Mr. Syms), as well as comments and representations from digital switchover consumer expert groups have contributed to our proposing the amendments. Permitting local authorities and health and social services boards in Northern Ireland to disclose this information to the scheme will help blind and partially sighted people, allowing the scheme operator more readily to identify those who are eligible. That will mean that the claims procedure can be streamlined, avoiding the need to fill in forms to establish eligibility, making the scheme easier for them to access and benefiting the scheme operator.
	We have worked closely throughout the switchover process with the digital television consumer expert groupcomprising leading charities representing vulnerable people, including the Royal National Institute of the Blind and Senseon how best to identify those who are registered blind or partially sighted. The over-75s will be identified from data held by the Department for Work and Pensions, but we estimateas other hon. Members have donethat about 20 per cent. or 50,000 people can be identified only from data held by local authorities or health boards.
	I explained in Committee that we were very sympathetic to the views of hon. Members and that we were actively engaging in consultation to ensure that data on registered blind or partially sighted people could be obtained by relevant bodies. Those consultations have now been completed and I am very grateful for the advice that officials received from all at RNIB, particularly Leen Petr, and also from Sense, particularly Katie Hanson, about how to tackle the problem. I know that both organisations are very supportive of the amendments that we are proposing today.
	I am now able to introduce this group of amendments, which, taken together, will permit the relevant authorities to disclose information from their register on registered blind or registered partially sighted people. The provisions cover the UK and we have, of course, consulted the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Departments affected by the new provisions to ensure that they are effective across the entire UK.
	I deal now with the specific amendments. Government amendment No. 4 extends clause 1 to enable a local authority or a health and social services board in Northern Ireland to disclose visual impairment information to a relevant personin practice, the help scheme operator, for switchover help functions. Government amendment No. 7 covers similar ground to Government amendment No. 4 and Government amendment No. 5, linked in turn to amendment No. 4, defines visual impairment information as information of a prescribed kind, drawn from registers of blind and partially sighted people. We have yet to finalise details of what will be prescribed covers, but it will probably be limited to name, alias, date of birth and address, possibly the national insurance number, if known, and preferred method of communicationfor example, large print, tape or Braille. The order will be made by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
	Amendment No. 6 defines a local authority for England, Wales and Scotland. The definition restricts the application of the amendment to the definition to local authorities with social services functions as registers are not maintained by other councils. The provisions are permissive and will not oblige the relevant authorities to disclose information. That is in line with the provisions relating to social security and war pensions information. The powers are triggered by a request from the scheme operator, which we envisage will be timed at the start of the qualifying period in a region. There is no obligation to provide information, but we hope that local authorities will want to co-operate. The powers mean that the provisions that would make disclosure unlawful are not a consideration.
	I deal now with the question of costs, which was raised in Committee. Having discussed the issue with the RNIB and Sense, we are satisfied that, although the hon. Member for Poole and other members of the Committee were concerned that the costs might be large, they are, in fact, minimal. We may be looking at an expense of perhaps a few hundred pounds at most per authority. At this stage, therefore, the process of reimbursement mightironicallybe more expensive if done administratively than otherwise. However, as I have already said, it is our intention to help and enable during the Bill's passage. If we were to discover that the advice and information that we have taken so far from the RNIB, Sense and some local authorities turned out to be contrary to what I have just said, we would of course look at it further with Digital UK.
	We will still need to discuss the practical details with the Local Government Association and we will keep an open mind on reimbursement of costs. I hope that hon. Members across the House will understand that these issues are best dealt with in discussions and, if necessary, through a memorandum of understanding between the scheme and the LGA.

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I am sure that officials will have noted his remarks. As I have said, the practical details are best worked out with the LGA and local authorities, and we will do so.
	Again, I thank all hon. Members who raised this issue. Although doing so is always invidious, I particularly single out the work done in pursuing it by the hon. Member for Chesterfield. Although this is shown as a Government amendment, it is truly an amendment that has been inspired by many hon. Members from all parts of the House and with the co-operation and collaboration of the many charities and groups that want to ensure that the scheme is just, fair and reaches those who most need it.

Paul Holmes: I thank the Minister for his kind words. Obviously, we entirely support amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6, which achieve in a much more detailed and comprehensive way what we propose in amendment No. 7, which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) and myself. As the Minister says, we raised and discussed the issue in some detail in Committee, and bodies outside the House, such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind, Sense and the Disability Rights Commission, were very keen to ensure that such a provision was written into the Bill, rather than relying on an understanding of good will in the negotiations that had taken place privately with the Government.
	As has been said, in this case, local authorities are more likely to have more comprehensive data on those who are registered blind or partially sighted but who are not over 75 and not on benefits and so registered with the Government or the Department for Work and Pensions. Such individuals are more likely to be signed up with the local authority, although not all of them will be, because local authorities administer and run different schemes, such as those for free bus passes, that attract people who are partially sighted or registered blind to sign up.
	As was discussed in some detail in Committee, a significant body of people would benefit from the switchover provision but would not be identified if we relied entirely on data held centrally by Departments. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, the Minister revealed, for example, that the Government estimate that perhaps 60,000 people would fall into that category. So it is welcome that Government amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 should be written into the Bill to deal with that target group.
	The only slight caveat that I would add is that, if the Government had carried out a full quality impact assessment, as they are required to do under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, they might have picked up the flaw that may otherwise have been missed. That target group might have been identified perhaps earlier in the process and the Government could have written the provision into the Bill from day one. None the less, we have been able to get these amendments written into the Bill in a fairly short space of time, since the debate on Second Reading took place only a few weeks ago in December. That is welcome, and I offer wholehearted support for these Government amendments, which meet the requirements that we raised in Committee.

Edward Vaizey: I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to these amendments. When the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) moved the relevant amendment in Committee, where the Minister resisted it, he accurately predicted that the Minister would return with something similar, but he was inaccurate in the sense that he said that the Minister would claim credit for the amendment. It is much to the Minister's credit that he has singled out the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) for being so tenacious in ensuring that this point was debated.
	It is correct, as the Minister says, that a considerable number of blind or partially sighted people are not identified on the database of the Department for Work and Pensions because the information is held by local authorities. As we have heard, it is estimated that something like 20 per cent. of those eligible can be identified only through local authorities. That is some 50,000 to 60,000 people. I am sure that the whole House will join me in saying that it is incredibly important for those people, in particular, that the amendment goes through.
	There are a number of technical points that I am not sure that I fully understand. One is a point that I raised in Committee and that was made to me by the Disability Rights Commission. There is a difference between somebody who is registered blind and somebody who is certified blind. Will the amendment ensure that those who are certified blindwhich as I understand it is a stage before being registered as blind or partially sightedwill be eligible for the relief? The DRC also said that there are something like 75,000 people who are neither registered nor certified blind or partially sighted, but who are in need of the assistance. I simply raise that issue. I am afraid that I can offer no particular solution to the question of how to target those people. I would be interested to hear the Minister's points.
	When we discussed the changes in Committee, the Minister said that he had been in discussion with the Department of Health and the Department for Constitutional Affairs. At that point, he said that the Department of Health was resisting the changes because, as I understand it, it said that data protection legislation could not be overcome. I am sure that it would be of immense value to Opposition Membersif not for this amendment, for future amendmentsto learn how those objections were overcome.

Shaun Woodward: I think that, if the hon. Gentleman goes back through the Committee proceedings, he will find that I said that the Department of Health was in consultation with us because it was concerned that there could be problems. It quite rightly raised those concerns, because we do not want to bring forward legislative proposals that do not work. I pay tribute to and thank health officials, who, by speedily working with a variety of groups, ensured that we were able to come up with an amendment that will work.

Edward Vaizey: I am pleased that I raised that point because it has given the Minister the opportunity to thank another group of peopleDepartment of Health officialsfor their hard work. We can put on record our thanks to them for working so diligently on the issue between Second Reading, and Report and Third Reading. I join the Minister in extending my congratulations to them.
	Finally, I want to address the issue of cost, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) in Committee and addressed by the Minister when he moved the amendments. It is perfectly predictable that we on the Conservative Benches, who are used to careful stewardship of the public finances, both at local authority and national level, should spontaneously want to raise the issue of cost. Although we support the amendment and think that it is important that the BBC and the vehicle that it creates for digital switchover are able to request access to local authority records, we understand that that will come at a cost. The Minister indicated that the cost would be a few hundred pounds per local authority. Given the consensual style of the debate, I do not wish to appear churlish, but it is a source of immense frustration to Opposition Members that the estimate of 600 million for the whole of switchover has been given to us with no workings. We were told of the estimate, but the Minister did not give us any details about how he arrived at that estimate. It would help if he set out in a few sentences the practical, physical work that a local authority would undertake in order to comply with the provision. I have indicated that we do not intend to resist the amendmentpartly on the basis of a great deal of trust.

Nigel Evans: Although we should not get into such a debate, I hope that my hon. Friend thinks that sufficient funding will be made available for all who will be able to claim for assessments. The borders area will be the first to switch over. It will be a guinea pig not only for the switchover itselfwe will have to see who cannot get television after the switchover datebut for the assessments made in the lead up to the switchover, including during the prior month.

Shaun Woodward: My psychic powers are not working to their full potential today. I remind the House that I made it quite clear that the advice on costs had been produced by the Royal National Institute of the Blind and Sense, so those are the organisations to which hon. Members should look. As I said in Committee, I am happy to share the workings on the wider scheme with the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) when it is possible for me to do so. I remind him that I have put it on record that in the event that the costs turn out to be greater than those estimated, with their expertise, by RNIB and Sense, we have moneys available to reimburse organisations that work with people with specific handicaps.

Edward Vaizey: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have made my point as effectively as I could.
	I return to my original submission about the amendments, which provides local authorities with the power to give information to the BBC if it requests it, to help registered blind and partially sighted people. The Minister detained me for a considerable time on the issue of costs, through his numerous interventions on me, so he may have forgotten that I asked him some important questions about whether, under the amendments, someone who is certified blind is eligible to receive help. I also asked whether someone who is neither certified nor registered blind, but still needs helpsome 75,000 such people have been identifiedwould be eligible. In all other respects, we support the amendments, even though we cannot discuss their financial implications.

Shaun Woodward: We have had a long discussion about these issues. As I said, someone who is certified is certified blind by an ophthalmologist. To be registered blind, people must first be certified. At the risk of becoming certifiable in our circular and, at times, extraordinarily inward-looking discussion of an issue whose importance is not to be underestimated, may I remind hon. Members that they have had a chance to debate the issue? I hope that they all accept the Government's undertaking not to be profligate with public money.
	Sometimes it is best to defer to experts, and our best advice is from Sense and the RNIB, which have provided an estimate of costs. It is not a blank cheque from the Governmentthere is no reason whatever to believe that it isand we have made it clear for the benefit of local government and local authorities that are unnecessarily worried by the comments of the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) that they have no cause to be anxious. We intend to honour our commitment to all organisations working with disadvantaged, disabled and particularly elderly people that, where appropriate, we will fund the scheme that we have introduced, as we have the means to do so. Of course, we will seek value for money, and there is no suggestion in any shape or form that the scheme should escape such a requirement. This is not a blank cheque but, none the less, we guarantee that the organisations we asked to undertake the work will not be financially disadvantaged as a result.
	 Amendment agreed to.

Shaun Woodward: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill is a small but important measure which will help us achieve the goal of completing digital switchover between 2008 and 2012. It will ensure that the most vulnerablethose who are over 75, disabled or visually impairedhave access to an efficient and effective system of help to support them through the changes.
	Our debates have covered a number of subjects, which is not surprising, given the range and scope of the digital switchover programme, even though the Bill has such a small number of clauses. We have looked in detail at the information that the Bill permits to be disclosed to the help scheme. I am pleased that we were able to table Government amendments on Report to widen the scope of the power to cover information held by local authorities on people who are registered blind or partially sighted.
	Undoubtedly, the House has improved the Bill. For that, I pay tribute again to the efforts of the digital switchover consumer experts group and all hon. Members from all parts of the House who raised the issue, including the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), who regrettably, even with his psychic powers, failed to predict that I would give him the credit that he deserves and which was rightly bestowed on him by the hon. Member for Wantage.
	We will continue to work with the consumer experts group and with the RNIB and Sense to ensure that we continue to improve the practical side of the Bill, and with local authorities and the Local Government Association. The Bill permits social security and similar data to be disclosed to the administrator of the help scheme so that people entitled to help under the scheme can be contacted directly. Naturally, sensitivities have rightly been expressed about the use of personal information for wider purposes, and much of our discussion has rightly focused on the protection of the information disclosed, the criminal powers included in the Bill, and the duration of the powers to disclose information. I take the opportunity again to thank all those who have been involved in shaping the arguments. I hope we have provided the necessary reassurances to all hon. Members.
	I thank all members of the Committee, the Chairman who presided over the proceedings, and other hon. Members who contributed to today's debate and on Second Reading. On behalf of all who served in Committee, I thank the Committee Clerk, the Bill team, and officials at the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Department of Health for helping to develop the proposals.
	The Bill, though modest in size, is an important measure. It will improve the efficiency of a help scheme covering those who are at most risk of having difficulty in adapting to the change. It involves the disclosure of personal data, but that is for a sensible and important causeassisting potentially vulnerable groups through the switchover process. Many of those eligible will not need assistance of any sort, as the figures already show. It is encouraging, though perhaps not surprising, to see that in the areas where digital switchover will begin, people already show an extremely high level of understanding, or have already purchased their first television set or the equipment that will enable them to benefit from digital switchover. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that everybody benefits from digital switchover, and we are grateful to all hon. Members for helping to ensure that the scheme will be a success and that the benefits of digital television will be universal. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Edward Vaizey: I thank the Minister for his convivial summing up. I join him in congratulating everyone involved in bringing the Bill to Third Reading before we send it to another place. In particular, I am grateful for the effective help of the Minister's officials, and grateful to the Committee Clerk, and the very experienced Chairman who guided me through my first Committee. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) seems to be the only Member to receive singular praise and thanks, may I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who has been for me like a guiding uncle throughout the proceedings, or a guide through the jungle, pointing out mantraps and pits, some of which I have fallen into despite his guidance?
	As the Minister pointed out, the Bill is designed to help the most vulnerable in society take advantage of one of the most important events in the United Kingdom. It is no exaggeration to say that television is a friend to many people, particularly the most vulnerable. I commend the Government's bravery in deciding to go for digital switchover. On Second Reading, it was telling that the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, having previously been a sceptic, freely admitted that he had become a convert. Given the magnitude of the undertaking, and the importance of television to the most vulnerable people in our society, it is vital that we get the switchover process right.
	Several points are worth raising as the Bill speeds on its way to the other place. As the Minister is aware, we accept that the Bill is permissive, in that it allows the BBC to make a request and allows the DWP and the Northern Ireland Office to accede to that request, if appropriate. However, we raised serious concerns about the security of information in relation to Northern Ireland and we were content to accept the Minister's assurances in Committee, so far as he was able to give them.
	We are also concerned about the timing of the Bill, which is a matter I attempted to explore through my sunset clauses. Clause 1 allows the BBC to establish a company to carry out switchover. Although that clause is in the Bill, we have heard nothing from the Minister about the state of negotiations or the likely nature of the company that will undertake the digital switchover proceedings. I hope that the Minister will return to the House when he concludes his negotiations on switchover with the BBC, update us on the progress of that joint venture, and allow, if not for a parliamentary debate, at least for enthusiastic Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Poole (Mr. Syms) to inspect up-to-date documents in the Library.
	It is extremely important that Conservative Members should register our concerns about the punishments contained in the Bill for breaching its strictures and the criminal offences that lie within it. I place on record my extreme gratitude to the Minister, not only for not completely destroying me in Committee when my amendments went awry, but for a full and detailed letter in which he answered my points about the Official Secrets Act. I hope that he will place that letter in the Library for any constitutional lawyers who are interested in the reverse burden of proof contained in clauses 3 and 4. I have to say that that is something I would not want the Bill to contain, if I were responsible for it, but I fully understand the Minister's reasoning.
	As we have said, this is a small, but important and perfectly formed Bill that is wending its way through Parliament. Although it shines light on a small part of this immense undertaking, I am afraid that it leaves us otherwise entirely in the dark because of its narrow focus. It is a matter of great concern to Conservative Members that Ministers remain utterly unaccountable to this House on the details of the scheme. As I have said on many occasions, we have been given a figure on the cost and told to like it or lump it. No estimate has been put before the House, or details of how the costs were arrived at

Edward Vaizey: I am coming to my conclusion. As a democrat, and as someone who came to this House to hold the Government to account on such matters, I simply wanted to register my sadness, while debating this particular Bill, that Parliament is unable to hold the Government to account on the wider issues. This is the largest civil project that this country has seen for 40 years, and we are unable to debate its detail. That is a matter of regret, but apart from that, I regret nothing.